Some thoughts about Bell's string paradox alternatives

In summary, If both spaceships maintain the same and constant proper acceleration, the string breaks because of the non-simultaneity of the acceleration effects at both ends of the string. But, if the spaceship engines maintain a constant and same F/M ratio, the string does not break.
  • #71
Lluis Olle said:
It's a claim from the point of view of the tip of the string.
No - it's a claim about interpretation of measurements made from the point of view of the tip of the string in a particular choice of coordinate system. The parts in italics are important, and neglecting them is a trap a lot of people fall in to. Finding statements that are true independent of arbitrary choices of coordinates is a more generally useful approach.
Lluis Olle said:
I said "happier".
Ironically, given the photo, you rather seem to have missed the point I was making in the paragraph you quoted. As I said, someone who knows what he's talking about was telling you that there are better ways to study relativity than the way you are going at it.

You may, of course, ignore the advice.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
I'm not studying S-R, and much less G-R. I just watch this YT video, I express some thoughts. Of course, you and many others in this Forum have a theoretical background that I don't. I studied some S-R and Differential Geometry some 40 years ago, but I'm now retired.

Nevertheless, I got not very convincing arguments so far. I would apply the photo I attached to myself then. As someone said, "You'll win, but you're not convincing me". At my age, I'll not go lying and saying "hey, what a great argument", when I believe is not.

And, you gave me an idea - thanks. Don't miss the post about Twin paradox!
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy and Motore
  • #73
Lluis Olle said:
I got not very convincing arguments so far.
Well, that is a little untrue. You got better discussion here than you did at any of the other places you posted, right? And the arguments were at least convincing enough that if you post on another forum you probably will change how you describe it, right? And I would hazard a guess that you probably have no immediate plans to post this on another forum, indicating at least some small sense of resolution to the argument.
 
  • #74
@Dale,

I'm talking about my last post, saying that the time dilation is key to understand the Bell's paradox, that was commented with an absolute "no, it isn't right" by @PeterDonis, not the previous ones.

You did give very informative and instructive arguments. If you read the post, you'll see I use the acceleration formula you obtained from Christoffel symbols, and that response is what someone would expect from this forum.

You put out of context whatever I say.

Close the thread.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #75
Lluis Olle said:
You put out of context whatever I say.
My mistake, sorry about that.
 
  • #76
Lluis Olle said:
Close the thread.
Done.
 

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top